In the Matter of William Joseph Kopesky - #110745
| William Joseph Kopesky |
| 3:2010mc80306 |
| December 14, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| San Francisco |
| Vaughn R. Walker |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
2
ORDER. No response to the OSC has been filed as of this date. The court now orders attorney removed from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice before this court. The clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Walker on 2/15/11. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2011)
|
|
Filing
1
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 1/28/2011.. Signed by Judge Walker on 12/14/10. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2010)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: In the Matter of William Joseph Kopesky - #110745 | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: William Joseph Kopesky | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
